Qualities Of George S Patton's Leadership

In December 1945, America lost one of the most successful combat leaders of World War II—George S. Patton. By the end of WW II, Patton rose to the rank of General in the US Army and was the commander of 15th Army in occupied Germany. However, just five years prior at the start of his strategic leadership phase, then Brigadier General Patton began as Commander, 2nd Armored Division in Ft. Benning, Georgia. Several factors undoubtedly contributed to his swift rise from 1-star to 4-star in just five years. Key among those factors was leadership. His leadership style was unique even for his time. He believed “a man who would qualify as a leader must lead—lead not by the cold incandescence of his super-refined intellect but by the fiery passion

of his blazing manhood.” He believed leading from the front, accepting the same risks as your men, and bold action were trademarks of effective leadership at the strategic level and inspiring his men to greatness on the battlefield his source of relevancy at that level. I submit that despite some leadership flaws, General Patton was an effective leader within the strategic environment of the time. But, was he relevant? Answering that question involves a three-fold process: first, define “strategic environment”, second, define relevance, and third, evaluate General Patton’s leadership based on those criterion within the context of Op TORCH, Op HUSKY, and Op OVERLORD.

Today, there are many descriptions of the strategic environment; however, Dr. Browning, in “Leading at the Strategic Level,” identified four criteria which best characterize the strategic environment—volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity

[VUCA].
The VUCA environment fundamentally alters how organizational ends are determined, the ways in which organizations must act, and the means strategic leaders must apply to achieve their desired ends. Volatility stems from the sheer number of actors, the rate of change caused by the increasing interconnectedness of those actors, and the organizational risks imposed by those changes. Uncertainty grows as organizations become overwhelmed with information and are unable to assimilate that information accurately to respond. Complexity describes, not the amount of “unknowns” in the environment, but rather the increasing number of “knowns” due to the competing interests of the actors in the strategic environment. The effects of volatility, uncertainty, and complexity combine to produce ambiguity that clouds the decision-making ability such that the organization or its leaders “doesn’t know what is happening.” As such, they are unable to appropriately respond, or respond at all, to events occurring in the environment. Patton’s leadership arena epitomized a VUCA environment. His initial strategic command occurred during Op TORCH as a Task Force commander. MG Patton’s task force comprised 31,000 soldiers and was combined with two British task forces during the invasion. Eight months later, the VUCA environment increased as now LTG Patton commanded the US 7th Army during Op HUSKY. This was first large-scale invasion of Europe, comprised US, British, and Canadian land and air forces, and attacked Italian forces on Axis soil. Following Op OVERLORD, the VUCA environment again increased as General Patton was “to assume command of all troops in the VIII Corps zone and to continue the breakout.” He now commanded four Corps against German troops directly threatening Germany itself. In each case, Patton’s strategic environment became more volatile, uncertain, complex, and adaptive. Each time, Patton led his forces to decisive military victories. But, were his victories enough to ensure his relevance? For the answer to that question, we again turn to Professor Browning.
In his model , Browning places the strategic leader at the intersection of two environments, internal and external. A leader’s relevancy is based on how well the leader balances the needs of those two environments. Synthesizing Browning’s seven leadership areas reveals three broad relevancy criteria: effectiveness/ efficiency, responsiveness/ agility, and stability/resiliency. Effectiveness evaluates how well the leader envisions desired end-states and then leads the organization toward their accomplishment. Efficiency measures how well the leader recognizes available capabilities/limitations, employs those capabilities, and/or increases organizational capabilities to overcome limitations. Responsiveness/agility determines how effectively the leader responds to shifts in the external environment to maintain organizational alignment and viability. Finally, stability/resiliency focuses on the leader and judges their ability to lead the organization before, during, and after inevitable crises. Therefore, a relevant strategic leader effectively recognizes the needs of the external environment, efficiently applies organizational capabilities toward those needs, and responsively adapts when needs change while providing stability and resiliency to the organization in times of crisis. Having defined Patton’s strategic environment and established relevancy criteria, one part remains—critically evaluate his leadership during Op(s) TORCH, HUSKY, and OVERLORD.
Op TORCH was the first large-scale US operation in the European theater of operations. As such, the stakes were high: physically for Patton’s forces, militarily, for the “Europe First” strategy, and politically, for the credibility of the US. Patton was adept at handling the physical and military stakes but had difficulty when it came to the political environment. Shortly after coming ashore, Patton realized “the beach was a mess and the officers were doing nothing…as a whole the men were poor, the officers worse; no drive.” Recognizing the detrimental effects of poor discipline to the entire operation, Patton “kicked butts because…that is what the situation demanded… and it worked.” Later, when operations in Tunisia slowed due to ineffective leadership, Patton was re-assigned as CG, II Corps and “hit them [II Corps] like Moses descending from Mount Ararat.” Patton understood his military objectives, was very effective at getting to the root of the problem, and could efficiently achieve those objectives within the constraints of his external environment. However, at the strategic level, military objectives are half of the equation. Political matters are often equally important. In this aspect, General Patton was moderately effective but much less efficient. Here, Patton “quickly found himself out of his depth.” Following negotiations with French forces and the Sultan of Morocco, Patton wrote “I wish I could get out and kill someone.” He had a brilliant military mind best employed during crisis when focused on clear military objectives. In this arena, Patton shined as a strategic leader. However, he lacked the tact and patience required for the political aspects of his position. The second criterion to evaluate Patton’s strategic relevance is responsiveness/agility.
The Sicily campaign showcases Patton’s relevancy in terms of his tremendous responsiveness and agility. The basic plan designated the British 8th Army the main effort task of capturing Messina. Patton’s army supported the main effort by protecting 8th Army’s left flank. Fog and friction intervened and the British effort stalled while Patton’s forces met little resistance and continued to advance. Seizing the initiative, Patton re-organized his forces, broadened his line of advance, and took the objective--Messina. The entire operation lasted just over one month and the allies now had a foothold in Europe. However, Patton’s political naiveté again hampered his relevancy as demonstrated by “the notorious slapping incident.” Initially shocked by the response to his actions, Patton soon realized the impact his actions would have on his effectiveness and adapted. It’s not clear if Patton genuinely learned from the experience or not but from then on he responded by “ruthlessly suppressing any habit that will tend to jeopardise it.” Again, the scorecard is mixed regarding Patton’s relevancy. The final relevancy criterion is stability/resiliency and Patton would have to wait 10 months for another chance at redemption.
Exactly one month after the Normandy invasion, Patton arrived in France and was back in action. Again, he clearly understood his military objective and ferociously pushed his men to achieve it. Patton’s personal drive, determined leadership, and ferocity in the pursuit were now hallmarks of his leadership style, something his supervisors counted upon and his men expected. In just over one month, Patton’s army “liberated over 3 million people, killed 16,000 Germans…and taken 65,000 prisoners…all the while keeping his eye on the future.” Crises arose again due to political matters. Coalition operations bogged down, their advances slowed, and thus severe fuel shortages resulted. Political concerns, once again, resulted in British forces given priority for fuel over Patton’s forces. Despite this, Patton remained focused on the objective, modified his plans to conform to the restraints placed upon him by the external environment and was poised to achieve that objective once the crisis abated.
General George S.

Patton was one of the most iconic military leaders of the 20th Century. His rapid ascension through the general officer ranks, vast increase in responsibilities, and battlefield successes attest to his strong leadership and relevancy at the strategic level. He was effective and efficient, responsive/agile, and stable/resilient militarily. However, he was marginally effective, not efficient, and unresponsive/non-agile in the politically. His inability to understand and effectively operate in the political component of the strategic environment diminished his overall relevancy in the strategic level. However, because he was leading during a time of crisis, his outstanding military leadership acumen overshadowed his political frailty. Despite Patton’s political frailty, Chief of Staff Marshall, Secretary Stimson and Eisenhower understood the qualities a military commander simply had to have to be successful militarily. “Patton had those qualities and you had to hold on to a person with these qualities, especially in a time of war.” Today, perhaps, General Patton would be a successful, relevant leader, however from during WW II he was, most certainly,

relevant.